Nbcwd
Per Wikipedia policy's, I am allowed to delete anything on my user talk page at any time. Refer to WP:REMOVED for more information on removal of comments from a user page or user talk page.
Removal of comments, notices, and warnings
Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed.
A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:
- Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction
- Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress)
- Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).
- For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates and notes left to indicate other users may share the same IP address.
- {{Noindex}} added to user pages and subpages under this guideline (except with agreement or by consensus). Note this can safely be removed from talk pages and subpages where it has no effect. (see below)
Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule.
In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to).
There are only four types of messages that a user should not remove: declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is still in progress) and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors. These templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question but also to communicate with others.
Users should not remove only portions of another user's comment, nor edit their comment in any other way. This includes paraphrasing, or correcting spelling, grammar, or factual errors. Even though these actions may be well meaning, they can change the intent of the original user's comment. Indentation or re-sectioning of comments (to help identify who said what or to provide chronological context) is allowed. Removing wikilinks without removing the displayed text is also allowed, as users may not want their talk page to show up in the "what links here" special page for certain wikipedia pages.
Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user, regardless of whether the talk page is for a registered editor or for an unregistered "anonymous" editor.
Commons edit
Hi, I've left some questions for you at Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Image:Killbot.jpg_and_Image:J_Devil_.28Jonathan_Davis.29.jpg. Just thought I'd leave a note here in case you saw his before your Commons talk page. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
New Korn album edit
I'm not disputing that they have entered the studio to record an album. That's what your reference (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/korn-enters-the-studio-for-new-album-20130502) states as well. The problem is that they don't have a name for the album. They don't have a release date. They don't even have a label. Take a look at Worship Music (album). They started recording it in 2008 and it wasn't complete until 2011. So the general rule on Wikipedia in relation to album projects is that without an album name and release date we only discuss it with prose, not with a discography entry. You can see that on U2's article. They have been recording for several months now and there is no entry for an upcoming album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- They do have a label, Prospect Park Records. That was announced months ago. http://audiokorner.com/?p=8694 http://www.bkentertainmentgroup.com/clients-2/don-gilmore
- Does the album have a name?
- Is there a specific release date? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seems simple then. Don't add it since things can still change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not the only one that has added and I won't be the last one I'm sure. This "discussion" should have been on the Talk:Korn, not my personal one. Decisions can not be made on my personal talk page so please post your issues on the Talk:Korn. So if you want to make a decision on what should or should not be on the Korn article, do it on that talk page Talk:Korn...not a personal user talk page. Thank you! Nbcwd (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed that it should not have been here, but you can deal with the Korn article. I'll deal with the Head article. And it's not a decision, it's the way things are done on Wikipedia album/music articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM as a participant of WP:WikiProject Electronic music. - TheMagnificentist 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Nbcwd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)